All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Stephen Warren <swarren@wwwdotorg.org>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Cc: Liam Girdwood <lrg@ti.com>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: boot_on regulator constraint vs. regulator-boot-on DT property
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 19:26:13 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4FE27835.5070705@wwwdotorg.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120620234648.GE4037@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>

On 06/20/2012 05:46 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 02:55:37PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
> 
>> include/linux/regulator/machine.h says:
> 
>>> * @boot_on: Set if the regulator is enabled when the system is
>>> initially *           started.  If the regulator is not enabled
>>> by the hardware or *           bootloader then it will be
>>> enabled when the constraints are *           applied.
> 
>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/regulator.txt says:
> 
>>> - regulator-boot-on: bootloader/firmware enabled regulator
> 
>> ... and of_regulator.c sets the boot_on constraint based on this
>> property.
> 
>> The former quote implies that this is a flag to tell Linux to
>> turn on the regulator when it's first registered, whereas the
>> latter quote implies that it's guaranteeing the state that
>> previous SW placed the regulator into already.
> 
>> I assume the documentation from machine.h is correct, and I
>> should send a patch to make regulator.txt match it?
> 
> There's no great inconsistency between the two, this is only
> supposed to be used for supplies which are already enabled on boot

Hmm. Perhaps I was misreading machine.h, and "when the system is
initially started" refers to the first firmware start, rather than
when /Linux/ starts. If so, then yes I can see it isn't really
inconsistent.

  reply	other threads:[~2012-06-21  1:26 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-06-20 20:55 boot_on regulator constraint vs. regulator-boot-on DT property Stephen Warren
2012-06-20 23:46 ` Mark Brown
2012-06-21  1:26   ` Stephen Warren [this message]
2012-06-21  9:12     ` Mark Brown

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=4FE27835.5070705@wwwdotorg.org \
    --to=swarren@wwwdotorg.org \
    --cc=broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=lrg@ti.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.